|
A level results
Can someone explain to me how every year the UK has record A level results (and GCSE) yet many of the people i interview look blankly when i ask them simple probability questions ?
|
Re: A level results
Simple, really. All the examinations have been made easier to pass.
Way, way back in the dark ages of the late 1970's when I was working for a large London Stock Exchange registered manufacturing company I couldn't believe the job applications I was getting. They'd be written (or scrawled) on foolscap (anybody remember that?) lined paper, paper torn off from a "reporter's" notebook or something similar, the spelling was simply dreadful and even then these applicants claimed to have degrees in engineering etc. Nothing's changed. Mind you, if you're asking them what the 'probability' is of the Dubai housing market improving then I wouldn't be surprised to be met with blank faces:rofl: |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by hnd
(Post 9570299)
Simple, really. All the examinations have been made easier to pass.
|
Re: A level results
Checked 2 years worth of a level papers from OCR, advanced maths from 2008 and 2009 papers no qustions on probabilties - also def seem piss easy for 74 marks within 1.5 hours - perhaps i need to get a bigger sample of papers (or stop being obsessive about small things !!)
|
Re: A level results
whats the question - Whats the probability of bradford winning a match?
|
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by UKCityGent
(Post 9571700)
Checked 2 years worth of a level papers from OCR, advanced maths from 2008 and 2009 papers no qustions on probabilties - also def seem piss easy for 74 marks within 1.5 hours - perhaps i need to get a bigger sample of papers (or stop being obsessive about small things !!)
I don't think the questions are getting easier, they're just different. More emphasis on essays through out the course and a combination of thinking the problems out rather than relying on a photographic memory and just remembering dates. |
Re: A level results
I did maths a level- about 16 years ago now and I must say I didnt understand a bloody thing on it. I still managed to pass it though- and I got a D- I literally missed at least half the lessons and those that I went to I may as well have gone to a spanish lesson as I understood about the same ammount as if they were speaking spanish- and I passed! I did cram revision in though. I can't even spell trigowotsit anymore let alone do any of it!
Shoud i have passed- absolutely not and I have no idea how I did. Bloody failed art though- tell me how do you fail art :confused: |
Re: A level results
Have the times gone down for A Levels?
I remember my exams lasting at least 2 hours and art was four, 3 hour stints of painting at an easel and a written project. |
Re: A level results
On the premise that the young people I meet are no brighter than those of 20 years ago and that these days so many struggle with good written English, I can only conclude that the exams are easier.
|
Re: A level results
My husband's knowledge of the English grammar is simply shocking, I'm not talking about knowing what the saxon genitive is but what a verb/adjective etc...are....oh my, and he's from Oxford! He claims the school never taught grammar. It's enough to say that my written English as a non native is better than his!
|
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by alitrist
(Post 9572726)
My husband's knowledge of the English grammar is simply shocking, I'm not talking about knowing what the saxon genitive is but what a verb/adjective etc...are....oh my, and he's from Oxford! He claims the school never taught grammar. It's enough to say that my written English as a non native is better than his!
What I can't get over is the way English people (gross generalisation) often don't know how to put together and articulate an argument - nothing's clear, there's no progression or conclusion and they have only a very loose understanding of punctuation and paragraphs. Even some of the allegedly published academic stuff I'm forced to endure is quite frankly rubbish... worse than rubbish. Anyhow, back to English exams getting easier. I decided to take a GCSE in Italian a few years ago. I got an A* - I can understand it, can write it by adding random "o"s and "a"s onto the French word and actually can't string a sentence together to speak it. Mr Kitty (who's fluent in Italian) thinks it's hilarious... so do I really. |
Re: A level results
UK A level exams are definitely dumbed down. A few of my friends cracked C and D grades at A level maths and physics in a former colony in Africa, where we wrote the Cambridge International Exams, only to pass with A*/A 6 months later after travelling to the UK to write the "same" level exams.
For my first job interview in the UK after leaving the "dark" continent, I was asked to answer a series of mathematical problems (fairly basic mind you - stats & algebra). Well I answered correctly on all of them. When I asked how other candidates performed, I was told that I was the only one to answer all correctly - and to show working out. Regarding A level probability questions. I remember covering probability for my O levels - probably early Form 4 if my memory serves me correctly. This is a sample paper O level paper not too dissimilar from what I wrote in 1989 - and knowledge of probability is tested here. http://www.cambridgestudents.org.uk/...4_s03_qp_2.pdf See how many you can tackle now :eek:. Also I'm pretty sure for paper 1 (there were 2 papers) you weren't allowed to use a calculator. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by RDP80
(Post 9572896)
This is a sample paper O level paper not too dissimilar from what I wrote in 1989 - and knowledge of probability is tested here. See how many you can tackle now :eek:. Also I'm pretty sure for paper 1 (there were 2 papers) you weren't allowed to use a calculator. Its a shame we are underselling our kids nowadays - bring back the birch, cold showers and PT in the snow |
Re: A level results
|
Re: A level results
They haven't been dumbed down. The tests themselves are still as difficult as they always where.
What HAS happened from my own personal experience, as well as those of my friend's siblings who recently took them, through to those who sat them many years ago, is the way we were taught our A level, and indeed GCSE subjects. I – and everyone younger than myself, as well as some a little older – have been taught in a way that emphasises how to pass the test. Not to understand why things are happening, but how to figure out the patterns and use those patterns to get the question right. They know what the right answer is, how to work out the right answer, but they have no idea WHY it is the right answer. That's why when you take them out of that setting, they have no idea. For example, I got an A, A, A, B, and E (Geography, English, Business Studies, Music Technology, and Law – though I was surprised to pass Law at all to be honest) at A Level (2003). Yet despite getting an A in English, I didn't actually learn, and therefore understand, how grammar actually works until my first full-time job in the media (i.e. not freelancing). And it's not just the fault of Labour and its league tables, though they did exacerbate the problem. No, the root of the problem lies with universities and employers who demand certain grades to qualify for whatever they are offering (university course, or graduate course etc). It's the emphasis on grades, rather than the understanding of the subjects, that has led to today's problems. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 9582642)
They haven't been dumbed down. The tests themselves are still as difficult as they always where.
What HAS happened from my own personal experience, as well as those of my friend's siblings who recently took them, through to those who sat them many years ago, is the way we were taught our A level, and indeed GCSE subjects. I – and everyone younger than myself, as well as some a little older – have been taught in a way that emphasises how to pass the test. Not to understand why things are happening, but how to figure out the patterns and use those patterns to get the question right. They know what the right answer is, how to work out the right answer, but they have no idea WHY it is the right answer. That's why when you take them out of that setting, they have no idea. For example, I got an A, A, A, B, and E (Geography, English, Business Studies, Music Technology, and Law – though I was surprised to pass Law at all to be honest) at A Level (2003). Yet despite getting an A in English, I didn't actually learn, and therefore understand, how grammar actually works until my first full-time job in the media (i.e. not freelancing). And it's not just the fault of Labour and its league tables, though they did exacerbate the problem. No, the root of the problem lies with universities and employers who demand certain grades to qualify for whatever they are offering (university course, or graduate course etc). It's the emphasis on grades, rather than the understanding of the subjects, that has led to today's problems. I'm 54 years old, and I can confidently state that my A-Levels were the toughest thing I have ever done, before or since. University? Walk in the park compared to my A-Levels. These days, there is more emphasis on 'reasoning', etc, but the syllabus simply doesn't contain as many challenging facts to make them worthwhile. True story: a Physics question came up in 2007 that was exactly the same (including the exact wording) as an exam question in 1972. One other point to note: in 2007, it was a A-Level question, whereas in 1972 it had been an O-Level question............ |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 9582642)
I – and everyone younger than myself, as well as some a little older – have been taught in a way that emphasises how to pass the test. Not to understand why things are happening, but how to figure out the patterns and use those patterns to get the question right. They know what the right answer is, how to work out the right answer, but they have no idea WHY it is the right answer. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 9584515)
You're not going back far enough to get a meaningful comparison.
I did A Levels in the 90s*. Did I find subjects being introduced at that level, that had only been O Level subjects in the past? Sure. But there was no group theory (for example) in those older papers. The range of subjects covered was much, much broader and that trend is increasing. (*5 As and a C) |
Re: A level results
The rot set in when O-levels were scrapped. The GCSE was a combination of an O-level and the much easier CSEs, so had to be easier than O-levels for most people to pass them.
The whole system has done teenagers a disservice since then. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Hello.Kitty
(Post 9572860)
What I can't get over is the way English people (gross generalisation) often don't know how to put together and articulate an argument - nothing's clear, there's no progression or conclusion and they have only a very loose understanding of punctuation and paragraphs. Even some of the allegedly published academic stuff I'm forced to endure is quite frankly rubbish... worse than rubbish. You only have to look at the 'debates' that go on here to see that ;) N. |
Re: A level results
Personally I think it's less the content of the exams but the exams being sat.
Last year, my old Grammar came no.1 in the country based on the English Bacca that's been devised - the staple parts of a rounded education. This was partly aimed at stopping expensive public schools from putting rich ****wits through a cooking GCSE to get good grades. My A-Levels were in English Language, Economics, Law and Psychology. Aside from Psychology which is borderline, they are all proper subjects as far as I'm concerned. My 6th Form College however, was full of people doing shite A-Levels; Media Studies, Sociology, Business Studies, Photography, Film Studies. They all generate great results and passes because you curl something out your arse that warrants an A*. Thats my thoughts anyway, less what's in the exam but more about what is being sat. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 9586161)
The rot set in when O-levels were scrapped. The GCSE was a combination of an O-level and the much easier CSEs, so had to be easier than O-levels for most people to pass them.
The whole system has done teenagers a disservice since then. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 9586216)
Personally I think it's less the content of the exams but the exams being sat.
Last year, my old Grammar came no.1 in the country based on the English Bacca that's been devised - the staple parts of a rounded education. This was partly aimed at stopping expensive public schools from putting rich ****wits through a cooking GCSE to get good grades. My A-Levels were in English Language, Economics, Law and Psychology. Aside from Psychology which is borderline, they are all proper subjects as far as I'm concerned. My 6th Form College however, was full of people doing shite A-Levels; Media Studies, Sociology, Business Studies, Photography, Film Studies. They all generate great results and passes because you curl something out your arse that warrants an A*. Thats my thoughts anyway, less what's in the exam but more about what is being sat. As for photography, it's definitely not shite, but it is much more practical and hands on than most other A Levels. I didn't do it at A Level, but I would bet that there's a fair whack of theory in there. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 9586589)
I wouldn't describe photography and business studies as shite. Business Studies is essentially an MBA-lite in the sense that it gives people a basic understanding of many principles of modern business. To call it shite is to say MBAs are shite too.
As for photography, it's definitely not shite, but it is much more practical and hands on than most other A Levels. I didn't do it at A Level, but I would bet that there's a fair whack of theory in there. Remember: MBA = Means Bugger All |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 9586601)
MBAs are shite...........
Remember: MBA = Means Bugger All I think MBAs do not teach you anything new if you have some good education and experience. One of the key things i picked up from the MBA was the address list and opened a few doors to change careers |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 9586601)
MBAs are shite...........
Remember: MBA = Means Bugger All |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by jackthehat
(Post 9586760)
I am with you 100% I put them in the same category as 'Life Degrees!' - Could not get a 'Real One!'
M.A.S.T.E.R.S. = Modest Achiever Still Trying the Educational Route to Success. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by auzdafluff
(Post 9586589)
I wouldn't describe photography and business studies as shite. Business Studies is essentially an MBA-lite in the sense that it gives people a basic understanding of many principles of modern business. To call it shite is to say MBAs are shite too.
As for photography, it's definitely not shite, but it is much more practical and hands on than most other A Levels. I didn't do it at A Level, but I would bet that there's a fair whack of theory in there. Photography as an A-Level? Sorry, but again that's a joke. If someone wants to be a photographer then great, but don't bother doing any other A-Levels. If someone wants a proper job, then do some proper A-Levels. |
Re: A level results
Scamp
Are you suggesting that being a photographer is not a proper job?? |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 9587886)
Scamp
Are you suggesting that being a photographer is not a proper job?? It's a way to avoid the 9-5 / office job without having to work too hard. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Scamp
(Post 9587901)
Not really, my mate is a photographer out here and just bums around doing the odd shoot and bits of editing.
It's a way to avoid the 9-5 / office job without having to work too hard. There are numerous occupations that don't fit into some dull suit-wearing, office-based, 9-5 routine. Try doctors, military, writers, journalists, airline staff, artists or performers for starters. You should know better. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 9587995)
Don't be so narrow minded. I know numerous full time photographers, some with their own businesses and studios who work very hard. Your mate may be a lazy git, but they exist in any business.
There are numerous occupations that don't fit into some dull suit-wearing, office-based, 9-5 routine. Try doctors, military, writers, journalists, airline staff, artists or performers for starters. You should know better. Yes, it's a 'proper job' but I can't imagine an A-Level is the usual route into it. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by The Dean
(Post 9586919)
And we all know what a Masters is.................
M.A.S.T.E.R.S. = Modest Achiever Still Trying the Educational Route to Success. "Education Kills by Degrees!" |
Re: A level results
Most people today confuse schooling with education.
They are very different things. Education does not require a person to ever set foot in a school or take an examination - it requires intelligence, discipline and a desire to learn. History is full of men and women who left their qualified peers wallowing in the mud while they reached for the stars. N. |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by Meow
(Post 9587995)
Don't be so narrow minded. I know numerous full time photographers, some with their own businesses and studios who work very hard. Your mate may be a lazy git, but they exist in any business.
There are numerous occupations that don't fit into some dull suit-wearing, office-based, 9-5 routine. Try doctors, military, writers, journalists, airline staff, artists or performers for starters. You should know better. |
Re: A level results
I know a lot of photographers- most have learnt through assisting rather than through the college system, but they are all in their 30's before photography was available widely as a course. A photography degree for me is the same as most arts subjects, I did fashion at uni and had only used a sewing machine at the age of 18 so had a massive amount of the basic principles to learn before I could apply my creativity. The same as photography. There is a lot of basic knowledge that has to be understood first.
The problem with arts courses is that a fashion course or photography course is only relevant to a job in that area, and when jobs in those areas are incredibly competitive you will inevitably get people with fashion/photography degrees working in areas where there degree is worthless. Whereas an academic subject is more widely acceptable. The photographers I know work bloody hard and am sure they would lamp you one Scamp for implying otherwise. As it is an industry of freelancers if they don't work they don't get paid. |
Re: A level results
"A Level"
Black Country Dialect for an Uneven Surface! |
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by littlejimmy
(Post 9591879)
Indeed, and just because you work in an office doesn't mean you're hard-working. How many spend at least 50% of their time on the internet, chatting, taking fag breaks or just pretending to work?
|
Re: A level results
Originally Posted by littlejimmy
(Post 9591879)
Indeed, and just because you work in an office doesn't mean you're hard-working. How many spend at least 50% of their time on the internet, chatting, taking fag breaks or just pretending to work?
|
Re: A level results
So while we all sit here claiming greatness and that the spotty kids of today are stupid and doing easier exams - how did you lot do?
For me, I was old school. 3 exams, 3 A's. Couldn't be bothered doing any more as I only needed 3 for university. Physics - A Maths - A Chemistry - A |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 6:24 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.